Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.430, 0.174

0.407

time_point

1st

2nd

0.030

0.134

-0.232, 0.293

0.822

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.177

0.193

-0.201, 0.555

0.359

Pseudo R square

0.004

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.380

-0.825, 0.665

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.184

0.245

-0.664, 0.297

0.454

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.03

0.354

0.332, 1.72

0.004

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.504

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.712

-1.06, 1.73

0.637

time_point

1st

2nd

0.761

0.398

-0.020, 1.54

0.058

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.04

0.577

-0.092, 2.17

0.073

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.184

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.260

-0.477, 0.541

0.902

time_point

1st

2nd

0.017

0.174

-0.323, 0.358

0.920

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.324

0.251

-0.169, 0.816

0.199

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.290

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.410

-0.459, 1.15

0.402

time_point

1st

2nd

0.436

0.255

-0.065, 0.936

0.089

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.442

0.369

-0.282, 1.17

0.233

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.546, 0.914

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.391

0.208

-0.017, 0.799

0.062

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.289

0.301

-0.302, 0.879

0.339

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.214

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.303

-0.986, 0.202

0.197

time_point

1st

2nd

0.056

0.210

-0.355, 0.467

0.790

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.836

0.303

0.243, 1.43

0.006

Pseudo R square

0.016

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.882

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.247

-3.73, 1.16

0.303

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.27

0.635

-2.51, -0.021

0.048

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.266

0.920

-2.07, 1.54

0.773

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.409

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.578

-1.14, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.445

0.341

-0.223, 1.11

0.193

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.165

0.493

-0.801, 1.13

0.738

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.515

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.729

-0.589, 2.27

0.250

time_point

1st

2nd

0.489

0.413

-0.321, 1.30

0.238

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.233

0.598

-0.940, 1.41

0.698

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.641

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.907

-0.410, 3.15

0.133

time_point

1st

2nd

1.18

0.490

0.218, 2.14

0.017

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.124

0.709

-1.27, 1.51

0.861

Pseudo R square

0.017

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.336

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.475

-0.579, 1.28

0.459

time_point

1st

2nd

0.448

0.258

-0.058, 0.955

0.084

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.069

0.374

-0.802, 0.664

0.855

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.544

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.770

-1.51, 1.51

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.736

0.423

-0.093, 1.56

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.400

0.612

-0.799, 1.60

0.514

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.631

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.892

-1.43, 2.07

0.720

time_point

1st

2nd

1.19

0.470

0.269, 2.11

0.012

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.279

0.680

-1.61, 1.05

0.682

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.388

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.549

-0.317, 1.84

0.167

time_point

1st

2nd

0.714

0.343

0.042, 1.39

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.474

0.496

-0.497, 1.45

0.340

Pseudo R square

0.024

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.353

0.052, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.045

0.204

-0.445, 0.355

0.825

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.408

0.295

-0.171, 0.986

0.168

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.286

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.404

-0.400, 1.18

0.333

time_point

1st

2nd

0.350

0.229

-0.099, 0.798

0.128

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.312

0.331

-0.336, 0.961

0.347

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.416

-0.120, 1.51

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.339

0.218

-0.089, 0.767

0.122

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.174

0.316

-0.446, 0.793

0.583

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.540

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.764

-0.409, 2.59

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.683

0.382

-0.065, 1.43

0.075

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.499

0.553

-0.585, 1.58

0.368

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.819

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.158

-3.49, 1.05

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.787

0.610

-1.98, 0.408

0.198

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.36

0.883

-3.08, 0.375

0.126

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.445

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.630

-0.226, 2.24

0.111

time_point

1st

2nd

0.300

0.336

-0.358, 0.958

0.372

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.648

0.486

-0.304, 1.60

0.184

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.361

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.511

0.007, 2.01

0.049

time_point

1st

2nd

0.576

0.295

-0.001, 1.15

0.052

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.268

0.426

-0.567, 1.10

0.530

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.768

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.086

-0.113, 4.14

0.064

time_point

1st

2nd

0.874

0.572

-0.247, 1.99

0.128

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.924

0.828

-0.698, 2.55

0.266

Pseudo R square

0.025

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.143

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.202

-0.467, 0.323

0.721

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.147

0.158

-0.457, 0.164

0.355

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.183

0.229

-0.265, 0.631

0.425

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.309

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.437

-0.136, 1.58

0.100

time_point

1st

2nd

0.682

0.306

0.082, 1.28

0.027

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.705

0.442

-1.57, 0.162

0.113

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.378

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.534

-0.583, 1.51

0.386

time_point

1st

2nd

0.614

0.328

-0.029, 1.26

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.248

0.475

-0.682, 1.18

0.602

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.617

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.873

-0.527, 2.90

0.176

time_point

1st

2nd

1.30

0.549

0.218, 2.37

0.019

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.442

0.794

-2.00, 1.12

0.579

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.404

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.571

-0.591, 1.65

0.356

time_point

1st

2nd

0.804

0.327

0.163, 1.45

0.015

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.138

0.473

-0.789, 1.07

0.770

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.223

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.316

-0.627, 0.611

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.205

0.233

-0.252, 0.662

0.380

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.493

0.336

-0.166, 1.15

0.144

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.276

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.390

-0.853, 0.677

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.415

0.271

-0.946, 0.115

0.127

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.444

0.391

-1.21, 0.322

0.257

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.324

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.459

-0.675, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.307

0.249

-0.794, 0.181

0.219

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.714

0.360

-1.42, -0.008

0.049

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.470

-1.00, 0.842

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.474

0.256

-0.975, 0.027

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.369

0.370

-1.09, 0.356

0.319

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.473

-0.519, 1.34

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.279

0.254

-0.778, 0.219

0.273

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.672

0.368

-1.39, 0.050

0.069

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.935

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.322

-2.04, 3.14

0.676

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.08

0.643

-2.34, 0.183

0.096

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.69

0.931

-3.51, 0.135

0.071

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(442) = 29.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(442) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(442) = 0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.56], t(442) = 0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(442) = 66.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(442) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30], t(442) = -0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.33, 1.72], t(442) = 2.90, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.11, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(442) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(442) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.54], t(442) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-3.58e-03, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.17], t(442) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(442) = 63.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(442) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.36], t(442) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 8.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.82], t(442) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(442) = 59.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(442) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.94], t(442) = 1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.17], t(442) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(442) = 49.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(442) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.80], t(442) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-5.67e-03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.88], t(442) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(442) = 46.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(442) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47], t(442) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.24, 1.43], t(442) = 2.76, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(442) = 35.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.16], t(442) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.51, -0.02], t(442) = -1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -2.17e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-2.07, 1.54], t(442) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(442) = 53.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(442) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.11], t(442) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.13], t(442) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(442) = 47.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(442) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.30], t(442) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.41], t(442) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(442) = 30.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(442) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.22, 2.14], t(442) = 2.40, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.51], t(442) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(442) = 31.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(442) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95], t(442) = 1.74, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.66], t(442) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(442) = 27.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.90e-14, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(442) = -2.46e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -8.63e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.56], t(442) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.60], t(442) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(442) = 34.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(442) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.27, 2.11], t(442) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.05], t(442) = -0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(442) = 41.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(442) = 1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.04, 1.39], t(442) = 2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [9.60e-03, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.45], t(442) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(442) = 52.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(442) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.35], t(442) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.99], t(442) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(442) = 58.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(442) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.80], t(442) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.96], t(442) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(442) = 42.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(442) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.77], t(442) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.79], t(442) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(442) = 54.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.59], t(442) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.43], t(442) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.58], t(442) = 0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(442) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(442) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.41], t(442) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.36, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.37], t(442) = -1.54, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(442) = 31.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.24], t(442) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.96], t(442) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.60], t(442) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(442) = 42.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [6.60e-03, 2.01], t(442) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.62e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-9.96e-04, 1.15], t(442) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.45e-04, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.10], t(442) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(442) = 37.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(442) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.99], t(442) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.55], t(442) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(442) = 89.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(442) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.16], t(442) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.63], t(442) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(442) = 46.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(442) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [0.08, 1.28], t(442) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.16], t(442) = -1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(442) = 34.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(442) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.26], t(442) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-6.80e-03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.18], t(442) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(442) = 44.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(442) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.22, 2.37], t(442) = 2.36, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.12], t(442) = -0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(442) = 46.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(442) = 0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.16, 1.45], t(442) = 2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.04, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.07], t(442) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(442) = 64.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(442) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66], t(442) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.15], t(442) = 1.47, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(442) = 42.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(442) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.12], t(442) = -1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.32], t(442) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(442) = 32.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.12], t(442) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.18], t(442) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.42, -8.15e-03], t(442) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.39, -2.25e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(442) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(442) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.03], t(442) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 7.20e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.36], t(442) = -1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(442) = 26.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(442) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.22], t(442) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.05], t(442) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(442) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(442) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.34, 0.18], t(442) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.69, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.14], t(442) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,429.045

1,441.359

-711.523

1,423.045

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,432.575

1,457.204

-710.288

1,420.575

2.470

3

0.481

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,165.749

2,178.063

-1,079.874

2,159.749

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,159.843

2,184.472

-1,073.922

2,147.843

11.905

3

0.008

ras_confidence

null

3

2,691.264

2,703.579

-1,342.632

2,685.264

ras_confidence

random

6

2,674.824

2,699.453

-1,331.412

2,662.824

22.440

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,827.950

1,840.265

-910.975

1,821.950

ras_willingness

random

6

1,829.946

1,854.575

-908.973

1,817.946

4.004

3

0.261

ras_goal

null

3

2,224.838

2,237.152

-1,109.419

2,218.838

ras_goal

random

6

2,215.732

2,240.361

-1,101.866

2,203.732

15.106

3

0.002

ras_reliance

null

3

2,100.919

2,113.233

-1,047.459

2,094.919

ras_reliance

random

6

2,093.278

2,117.906

-1,040.639

2,081.278

13.641

3

0.003

ras_domination

null

3

1,988.462

2,000.777

-991.231

1,982.462

ras_domination

random

6

1,978.071

2,002.700

-983.036

1,966.071

16.391

3

0.001

symptom

null

3

3,148.560

3,160.875

-1,571.280

3,142.560

symptom

random

6

3,144.119

3,168.748

-1,566.059

3,132.119

10.441

3

0.015

slof_work

null

3

2,504.691

2,517.006

-1,249.346

2,498.691

slof_work

random

6

2,506.040

2,530.669

-1,247.020

2,494.040

4.651

3

0.199

slof_relationship

null

3

2,700.282

2,712.597

-1,347.141

2,694.282

slof_relationship

random

6

2,700.332

2,724.961

-1,344.166

2,688.332

5.950

3

0.114

satisfaction

null

3

2,887.828

2,900.142

-1,440.914

2,881.828

satisfaction

random

6

2,879.351

2,903.979

-1,433.675

2,867.351

14.477

3

0.002

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,301.654

2,313.968

-1,147.827

2,295.654

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,302.235

2,326.864

-1,145.117

2,290.235

5.419

3

0.144

mhc_social

null

3

2,741.503

2,753.818

-1,367.752

2,735.503

mhc_social

random

6

2,738.040

2,762.669

-1,363.020

2,726.040

9.464

3

0.024

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,859.424

2,871.738

-1,426.712

2,853.424

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,855.733

2,880.362

-1,421.866

2,843.733

9.691

3

0.021

resilisnce

null

3

2,490.822

2,503.136

-1,242.411

2,484.822

resilisnce

random

6

2,478.560

2,503.189

-1,233.280

2,466.560

18.262

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

2,061.569

2,073.884

-1,027.785

2,055.569

social_provision

random

6

2,057.239

2,081.868

-1,022.620

2,045.239

10.330

3

0.016

els_value_living

null

3

2,176.267

2,188.581

-1,085.133

2,170.267

els_value_living

random

6

2,170.700

2,195.329

-1,079.350

2,158.700

11.567

3

0.009

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,176.024

2,188.339

-1,085.012

2,170.024

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,171.051

2,195.680

-1,079.525

2,159.051

10.974

3

0.012

els

null

3

2,707.054

2,719.369

-1,350.527

2,701.054

els

random

6

2,698.398

2,723.027

-1,343.199

2,686.398

14.656

3

0.002

social_connect

null

3

3,098.624

3,110.938

-1,546.312

3,092.624

social_connect

random

6

3,089.489

3,114.118

-1,538.745

3,077.489

15.134

3

0.002

shs_agency

null

3

2,554.195

2,566.509

-1,274.097

2,548.195

shs_agency

random

6

2,547.875

2,572.504

-1,267.938

2,535.875

12.319

3

0.006

shs_pathway

null

3

2,397.852

2,410.167

-1,195.926

2,391.852

shs_pathway

random

6

2,387.554

2,412.183

-1,187.777

2,375.554

16.298

3

0.001

shs

null

3

3,042.234

3,054.549

-1,518.117

3,036.234

shs

random

6

3,031.984

3,056.613

-1,509.992

3,019.984

16.250

3

0.001

esteem

null

3

1,644.298

1,656.612

-819.149

1,638.298

esteem

random

6

1,649.384

1,674.013

-818.692

1,637.384

0.914

3

0.822

mlq_search

null

3

2,309.815

2,322.130

-1,151.908

2,303.815

mlq_search

random

6

2,309.744

2,334.372

-1,148.872

2,297.744

6.072

3

0.108

mlq_presence

null

3

2,453.344

2,465.658

-1,223.672

2,447.344

mlq_presence

random

6

2,448.518

2,473.147

-1,218.259

2,436.518

10.826

3

0.013

mlq

null

3

2,899.739

2,912.053

-1,446.869

2,893.739

mlq

random

6

2,896.633

2,921.262

-1,442.316

2,884.633

9.106

3

0.028

empower

null

3

2,493.439

2,505.753

-1,243.720

2,487.439

empower

random

6

2,485.043

2,509.672

-1,236.522

2,473.043

14.396

3

0.002

ismi_resistance

null

3

2,037.367

2,049.682

-1,015.684

2,031.367

ismi_resistance

random

6

2,034.022

2,058.651

-1,011.011

2,022.022

9.345

3

0.025

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,211.746

2,224.060

-1,102.873

2,205.746

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,205.799

2,230.428

-1,096.900

2,193.799

11.946

3

0.008

sss_affective

null

3

2,280.093

2,292.407

-1,137.046

2,274.093

sss_affective

random

6

2,269.547

2,294.176

-1,128.773

2,257.547

16.546

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,300.708

2,313.022

-1,147.354

2,294.708

sss_behavior

random

6

2,293.314

2,317.943

-1,140.657

2,281.314

13.394

3

0.004

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,302.479

2,314.793

-1,148.239

2,296.479

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,294.600

2,319.229

-1,141.300

2,282.600

13.879

3

0.003

sss

null

3

3,192.814

3,205.128

-1,593.407

3,186.814

sss

random

6

3,179.686

3,204.315

-1,583.843

3,167.686

19.128

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.407

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

104

3.23 ± 1.21

-0.030

94

3.28 ± 1.20

-0.209

0.774

-0.049

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.045

recovery_stage_b

2nd

104

17.70 ± 2.90

0.102

94

18.64 ± 2.85

-0.470

0.021

-0.527

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.63

125

30.02 ± 5.63

0.637

-0.116

ras_confidence

2nd

104

30.45 ± 5.37

-0.262

94

31.82 ± 5.24

-0.619

0.070

-0.473

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.05

125

11.66 ± 2.05

0.902

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

104

11.64 ± 1.99

-0.014

94

12.00 ± 1.96

-0.268

0.206

-0.279

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.24

125

17.53 ± 3.24

0.402

-0.184

ras_goal

2nd

104

17.62 ± 3.12

-0.233

94

18.41 ± 3.06

-0.470

0.074

-0.421

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.121

ras_reliance

2nd

104

13.54 ± 2.81

-0.258

94

14.01 ± 2.74

-0.448

0.232

-0.311

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.197

0.255

ras_domination

2nd

104

10.01 ± 2.33

-0.036

94

10.45 ± 2.29

-0.580

0.177

-0.289

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.86

125

30.21 ± 9.86

0.303

0.279

symptom

2nd

104

30.23 ± 9.34

0.274

94

28.68 ± 9.09

0.331

0.237

0.336

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.57

125

22.06 ± 4.57

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

104

22.51 ± 4.38

-0.179

94

22.67 ± 4.28

-0.245

0.798

-0.063

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.76

125

25.34 ± 5.76

0.250

-0.278

slof_relationship

2nd

104

24.99 ± 5.50

-0.162

94

26.07 ± 5.37

-0.239

0.166

-0.356

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.17

125

21.03 ± 7.17

0.133

-0.383

satisfaction

2nd

104

20.84 ± 6.82

-0.330

94

22.33 ± 6.65

-0.365

0.120

-0.418

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.76

125

11.00 ± 3.76

0.459

-0.187

mhc_emotional

2nd

104

11.10 ± 3.57

-0.238

94

11.38 ± 3.49

-0.202

0.573

-0.151

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.09

125

15.13 ± 6.09

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

104

15.86 ± 5.80

-0.239

94

16.26 ± 5.65

-0.369

0.624

-0.130

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.06

125

21.87 ± 7.06

0.720

-0.094

mhc_psychological

2nd

104

22.74 ± 6.70

-0.348

94

22.78 ± 6.53

-0.266

0.965

-0.012

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.34

125

16.94 ± 4.34

0.167

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

104

16.89 ± 4.18

-0.285

94

18.12 ± 4.10

-0.474

0.037

-0.492

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.79

125

13.91 ± 2.79

0.036

-0.500

social_provision

2nd

104

13.12 ± 2.67

0.030

94

14.27 ± 2.61

-0.244

0.002

-0.774

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.333

-0.235

els_value_living

2nd

104

17.11 ± 3.05

-0.210

94

17.81 ± 2.98

-0.397

0.101

-0.422

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.29

125

13.10 ± 3.29

0.095

-0.438

els_life_fulfill

2nd

104

12.75 ± 3.12

-0.213

94

13.62 ± 3.04

-0.322

0.048

-0.547

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.04

125

30.26 ± 6.04

0.155

-0.391

els

2nd

104

29.85 ± 5.72

-0.246

94

31.44 ± 5.56

-0.425

0.048

-0.571

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.16

125

26.66 ± 9.16

0.295

0.274

social_connect

2nd

104

27.09 ± 8.70

0.177

94

24.52 ± 8.47

0.482

0.036

0.579

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 4.98

125

14.85 ± 4.98

0.111

-0.412

shs_agency

2nd

104

14.14 ± 4.73

-0.123

94

15.80 ± 4.61

-0.388

0.013

-0.677

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.04

125

16.34 ± 4.04

0.049

-0.469

shs_pathway

2nd

104

15.90 ± 3.86

-0.268

94

17.18 ± 3.77

-0.393

0.019

-0.594

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.59

125

31.18 ± 8.59

0.064

-0.484

shs

2nd

104

30.04 ± 8.16

-0.210

94

32.98 ± 7.94

-0.432

0.011

-0.706

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.59

125

12.73 ± 1.59

0.721

0.062

esteem

2nd

104

12.65 ± 1.57

0.126

94

12.76 ± 1.55

-0.031

0.618

-0.095

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.45

125

15.08 ± 3.45

0.100

-0.320

mlq_search

2nd

104

15.04 ± 3.36

-0.303

94

15.06 ± 3.31

0.010

0.974

-0.007

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.22

125

13.62 ± 4.22

0.386

-0.193

mlq_presence

2nd

104

13.77 ± 4.06

-0.256

94

14.48 ± 3.98

-0.359

0.214

-0.297

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.90

125

28.70 ± 6.90

0.176

-0.295

mlq

2nd

104

28.81 ± 6.65

-0.322

94

29.55 ± 6.52

-0.212

0.429

-0.185

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.52

125

19.38 ± 4.52

0.356

-0.221

empower

2nd

104

19.65 ± 4.31

-0.337

94

20.32 ± 4.22

-0.395

0.273

-0.279

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.50

125

14.35 ± 2.50

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

104

14.57 ± 2.44

-0.120

94

15.05 ± 2.41

-0.407

0.160

-0.283

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.09

125

11.70 ± 3.09

0.822

0.044

ismi_discrimation

2nd

104

11.38 ± 3.00

0.209

94

10.84 ± 2.95

0.433

0.209

0.268

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.62

125

10.62 ± 3.62

0.626

-0.124

sss_affective

2nd

104

10.09 ± 3.45

0.169

94

9.60 ± 3.36

0.563

0.313

0.270

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.043

sss_behavior

2nd

104

9.70 ± 3.54

0.254

94

9.25 ± 3.45

0.453

0.367

0.241

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.389

-0.220

sss_cognitive

2nd

104

8.43 ± 3.56

0.151

94

8.17 ± 3.47

0.513

0.598

0.142

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.45

125

29.84 ± 10.45

0.676

-0.118

sss

2nd

104

28.21 ± 9.87

0.230

94

27.07 ± 9.59

0.592

0.412

0.243

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(404.72) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(430.56) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(329.18) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(380.02) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.75)

ras_confidence

1st

t(306.80) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(354.30) = 1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.86)

ras_willingness

1st

t(336.49) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(387.07) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.91)

ras_goal

1st

t(322.97) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(373.54) = 1.79, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.65)

ras_reliance

1st

t(306.76) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(354.24) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.25)

ras_domination

1st

t(343.32) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)

2st

t(393.13) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.09)

symptom

1st

t(295.74) = -1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.17)

2st

t(338.93) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.13 to 1.02)

slof_work

1st

t(314.28) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(363.65) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.37)

slof_relationship

1st

t(308.69) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(356.74) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.59)

satisfaction

1st

t(302.34) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)

2st

t(348.33) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.39 to 3.38)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(303.23) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(349.55) = 0.56, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st

t(304.42) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(351.16) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.00)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(299.28) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.08)

2st

t(344.06) = 0.04, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st

t(323.34) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(373.94) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.39)

social_provision

1st

t(311.27) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(359.98) = 3.07, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.89)

els_value_living

1st

t(308.41) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(356.37) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.55)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(298.92) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(343.56) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.73)

els

1st

t(293.81) = 1.42, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.59)

2st

t(336.05) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.16)

social_connect

1st

t(299.31) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)

2st

t(344.11) = -2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.97 to -0.17)

shs_agency

1st

t(300.78) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)

2st

t(346.18) = 2.49, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.96)

shs_pathway

1st

t(311.00) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(359.65) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.34)

shs

1st

t(299.37) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(344.19) = 2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.69 to 5.19)

esteem

1st

t(375.14) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(415.78) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.55)

mlq_search

1st

t(346.26) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(395.59) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.95)

mlq_presence

1st

t(320.76) = 0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(371.11) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.84)

mlq

1st

t(324.80) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(375.50) = 0.79, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.58)

empower

1st

t(310.01) = 0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(358.42) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.86)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(358.47) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(404.96) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(343.96) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(393.66) = -1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(302.87) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(349.06) = -1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.46)

sss_behavior

1st

t(303.11) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(349.39) = -0.90, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.53)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(301.76) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(347.54) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.72)

sss

1st

t(291.08) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(331.88) = -0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.58)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(228.37) = 1.49, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.48)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(213.57) = 3.29, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 1.35)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(209.11) = 4.31, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.98 to 2.62)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(214.99) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.70)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(212.35) = 3.29, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.40)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(209.11) = 3.12, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.11)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(216.31) = 4.08, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(206.83) = -2.30, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.84 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(210.63) = 1.71, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.31)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(209.50) = 1.67, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.57)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(208.20) = 2.54, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.29 to 2.31)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(208.38) = 1.40, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.91)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(208.63) = 2.57, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.01)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(207.57) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.88)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(212.43) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.48 to 1.89)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(210.02) = 1.70, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.78)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(209.44) = 2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.13)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(207.49) = 2.24, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(206.42) = 2.95, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.97)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(207.57) = -3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.40 to -0.88)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(207.88) = 2.70, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.64)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(209.97) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.45)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(207.59) = 3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.62 to 2.98)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(222.41) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(216.87) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.61)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(211.92) = 2.51, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.54)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(212.71) = 1.49, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.98)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(209.77) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(219.21) = 2.87, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.18)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(216.43) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.30)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(208.31) = -3.92, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.51)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(208.36) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.32)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(208.08) = -3.57, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.48 to -0.43)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(205.85) = -4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.09 to -1.44)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(218.67) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(208.04) = -0.75, p = 0.908, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.30)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(204.95) = 1.91, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.55)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(209.04) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.36)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(207.19) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(204.94) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.80)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(209.96) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(203.38) = -1.99, p = 0.095, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.52 to -0.01)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(206.00) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.12)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(205.22) = 1.18, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(204.32) = 2.40, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(204.45) = 1.73, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.96)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(204.62) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.57)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(203.89) = 2.53, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.12)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(207.25) = 2.08, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.39)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(205.58) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(205.18) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(203.83) = 1.55, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.77)

els

1st vs 2st

t(203.10) = 1.79, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.44)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(203.89) = -1.29, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.42)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(204.10) = 0.89, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.96)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(205.54) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(203.90) = 1.53, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.00)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(214.31) = -0.93, p = 0.711, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(210.36) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.29)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(206.89) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.26)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(207.45) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.38)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(205.40) = 2.46, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.45)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(212.01) = 0.88, p = 0.760, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.66)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(210.05) = -1.53, p = 0.253, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.12)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(204.40) = -1.23, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(204.43) = -1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.03)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(204.24) = -1.10, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.22)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(202.70) = -1.67, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.34 to 0.19)

Plot

Clinical significance